Cooper's Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 26, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1554 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1554 DECISIONS OF . NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organizations involved claims to represent employees of.
the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following rea-,.
sons:
The Petitioner requests a unit of truck drivers, helpers, and ware-
housemen. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that such a
unit is inappropriate, on the ground that these employees are essen-
tially production employees who have been included in an over-all
production unit for at least 10 years.
The Employer is engaged at Brockton, Massachusetts, in the manu-
facture of inner soles and welting for shoes. The Employer has ap-
proximately 200 employees on its payroll. The ' 6 employees in the
unit sought comprise the shipping and receiving department. These:
employees load and unload freight cars. In this connection, 2 of
these employees drive trucks to and from the railroad station and, at
times also make deliveries to local customers. However, it is undis-
puted that these 2 employees as well as the others here sought spend
the greater part of their time working throughout the plant with
production employees in the welting room, the bailing room, the tan-
nery, and the cutting room. From these facts, and upon the entire
record in. this case, we believe that the Petitioner seeks to represent an
artificial grouping of employees which lacks the homogeneity and
cohensiveness requisite for the purposes of collective bargaining.'
Under these circumstances, we find that the requested unit is inappro-
priate and we shall therefore dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
2 See Chicago . Pneumatic Toot Company , Inc., 89 NLRB 799; Capitol Records, Inc.,
89 NLRB 1545; W. F. Schrafft & Sons Corporation, 86 NLRB 77.
COOPERS INC. and SEWING MACHINE MECHANICS ASSOCIATION OF
AMERICA, NEC, PETITIONER. Case No. 13-RC-1474. June 26,
1951
Supplemental Decision and Order
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board
on February 5, 1951, in the above-entitled matter, an election by secret
ballot was held under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Thirteenth Region, among the employees of the
94 NLRB No. 223.
COOPER'S INC. 1555
Employer in the unit found appropriate by the Board. Following
the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots. The tally
shows that of the 11 eligible voters, 4 cast ballots for the Petitioner, the
Sewing Machine Mechanics Association of America, NEC, 1 cast a
ballot for the Intervenor, Local 2268, Textile Workers Union of Amer-
ica, CIO, and 8 cast challenged ballots.'
Thereafter the Petitioner filed objections to conduct affecting the',
results of the election, alleging that the Employer and the Intervenor'
had improperly affected the outcome of the election.
As there were a sufficient number of challenged ballots to affect the'
results of the election, the Regional Director conducted an investiga
tion of the objections and of the challenged ballots. On April 191,
1951, he issued and served upon the parties his report on objections
and challenges, in which he found merit in only one of the Petitioner's
objections. As to the challenges, he recommended (1) that the chal-
lenges to the ballots of Langer and McAllister be overruled, (2) that
the challenges to the ballots of Schnuck, Follak, and Smith be sus-
tained, and (3) that Yonk's mail ballot be opened and counted and his
hand ballot be rejected.
Thereafter,- the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional
Director's recommendations respecting the objections. No exceptions
were received to his recommendations as to the challenged ballots of
Langer and McAllister; both the Employer and the Intervenor filed
exceptions to his recommendations as to the remaining four employees'
ballots.
1. As no exceptions were filed to the Regional Director's recom-
mendation that the challenges to the ballots of Langer and McAllister
be overruled, we shall adopt the recommendation to that extent pro
forma, and, in accordance therewith, we hereby overrule those two
challenges. Accordingly, we shall order that the ballots of Langer
and'McAllister be opened and counted.
2. Schnuck's and Follak's ballots were challenged on the ground
that they are not included in the bargaining unit found appropriate by
the Board. The unit is limited to sewing machine mechanics and
their apprentices. The Regional Director's investigation reveals that
these two employees are carried as "oilers" on the Employer's payroll
They spend between 60 and 100 percent of their time oiling, and greas-
ing sewing machines and other machinery. Their names do not ap-
pear on the detailed apprentice training records kept by the-
Employer. 'The investigation shows that Smith, whose vote was;
challenged on other grounds, is also an oiler like Schnuck and Follak..
Although Smith, hired after the hearing as an oiler, was told a few
Employee Smith and Yonk each cast two ballots, one by mail and one by hand ; alE
four of these ballots were challenged.
1556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
weeks before the election that he had become an apprentice , he is not-
shown as such on the Employer 's payroll or apprenticeship records.
Except for the fact that he also spends some time making minor re-
pairs and changing heads and belts on the sewing machines , he does the
same work as do Schnuck and Follak. Smith is paid less than Schnuck
and Follak , and all three are paid less than the apprentices.
In view of these facts , we find no merit in the contention of the Em-
ployer and the Intervenor that these three employees are in fact, if
not in name , apprentice sewing machine mechanics . Rather, we agree
-with the Regional Director 's finding that none of them is an appren-
tice. Accordingly , we hereby sustain the challenges to the ballots of
Schnuck and Follak . For the same reason we shall not open and
count the ballot of Smith.
3. There remains for consideration the challenges to the two ballots
cast by Yonk, who voted both by mail and by hand. Because
Yonk and Smith are stationed at the Employer 's Burlington plant,
30 miles distant from its main plant at Kenosha, Wisconsin, the
parties agreed to poll the Burlington employees by mail. Pursuant
to this agreeement, Yonk executed a mail ballot which was .postmarked
February 23, and received at the Board's Regional Office on Febr uary
26. The Intervenor challenged this ballot on the grounds that Yonk
had been unduly influenced by the Petitioner at a union meeting on
February 22, and that the mail balloting had not assured the secrecy
of Yonk's ballot. Yonkalso appeared at the hand balloting on Febru-
ary 27 and cast another ballot. The Petitioner challenged this one on
the ground, that he had already voted.
The Regional Director reported that Yonk attended a meeting of
the Petitioner on the evening of February 22, where, as part of a
union rally , a straw vote was taken as to whether the persons present
favored the Petitioner. It also appears that following the meeting
there was some drinking, but that nobody had more than one or two
drinks, and that there was no drunkenness. We do not view the cam-
paign enthusiasm engendered at this union meeting as constituting
h ny undue influence upon any of the employees who might be present.
Accordingly, we agree with the Regional Director 's conclusions that
the Petitioner 's activities at this meeting did not invalidate Yonk's
mail ballot.
As all parties agreed to ballot the Burlington employees by mail,
and as no other evidence was shown indicating improper use of the
Board's established mail balloting procedures we also reject the Inter-
venor's contention that in this case the fact of mail balloting per se
violated the secrecy of Yonk's ballot . Like the Regional. Director,
therefore , we hereby overrule the challenge .to Yonk's mail ballot and
we shall order that it be opened and counted. • Because Yonk had al-
ANACONDA WIRE AND CABLE COMPANY 1557
ready cast a valid ballot when he appeared at the polling place on
February 27, we hereby sustain the Petitioner's challenge to his
manual ballot.
IV. As the revised tally of ballots resulting from counting the
ballots of Langer, McAllister, and Yonk might be determinative of
the election in favor of the Petitioner, we shall not now consider that
Union's objections to conduct affecting the results of the election.
Order
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining with the Employer , the Regional Director
for the Thirteenth Region, shall , pursuant to the Rules and Regula-
tions of the National Labor Relations Board, within ten (10) days
from the date of this Order, open and count the challenged ballots of
Robert Langer and Alton McAllister , and the challenged mail ballot
of Walter Yonk, and shall , thereafter , prepare and cause to be served
upon the parties a supplemental tally of ballots.
MEMBER STYLES took no part in the consideration of the above Sup-
plemental Decision and Order.
ANACONDA WIRE AND CABLE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
ELECTRICAL RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER. Case
No. 13-RC-1811. J"e 26,1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before John P. von Rohr, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member penal [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved 1 claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1000, AFL, was permitted to
antervene.on the basis of its current. contract with the Employer.
94 NLRB No. 222.